Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Clause 86

Security of sensitive nuclear information

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.
 The Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks) rose—
Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD) rose—

Joan Humble: Order. I understand that the Minister was considering giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Steve Webb: I have kept the Minister on tenterhooks for this killer intervention, and I hope not to disappoint him. Clause 86 on which he was just about to conclude his remarks earlier contains the two words “nuclear” and “secrets” and that always worries Liberal Democrats a little. Given the track record of the nuclear industry for secrecy and lack of disclosure, can he assure us that the scope of the clause literally covers national security and so on and that it will in no way give greater secrecy to commercial and other matters that enable us to scrutinise either the companies or the Government’s nuclear policy?
 Malcolm Wicks rose—

Brian Binley: Will the Minister give way? Will he allow me to add to that?

Joan Humble: Order. The Minister should respond to the hon. Member for Northavon before moving on.

Malcolm Wicks: I can give the hon. Member for Northavon the assurance that he seeks. He said that I was about to conclude my remarks. He was being a little optimistic, so it might help if I make progress. Would it be of assistance to the hon. Member for Northampton, South if I said more about the clause before he made his intervention?

Brian Binley: If the Minister thinks that it would, I should be delighted to wait.

Malcolm Wicks: Before lunch, I was making the important point that the Energy Act 2004 resulted in a major restructuring of the nuclear industry, whereby sensitive nuclear information pertaining to uranium enrichment could be taken and stored away from the two sites designated as prohibited places under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. It would help the Committee if I emphasised the word “information”. We are talking about information, not materials. Materials must be kept on a licensed site. There are clear requirements for the holders of sensitive nuclear information and what they must do to protect it.
The Committee can be reassured that the security regulator—the Office for Civil Nuclear Security—is content that the requirements are both sufficient and up to date. The Bill proposes no change to the requirements. However, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security is concerned that, should an individual steal, or attempt to steal, sensitive nuclear information from premises that are not currently designated a prohibited place, the only sanctions available are prosecution for burglary or theft. I recognise that appropriate penalties are available for the usual offences of theft or burglary. However, I hope that the Committee will agree that theft and the potential onward dissemination of information that relates to uranium enrichment represents a risk to our nation’s security, so such matters warrant different treatment.
The regulator has therefore requested that the theft of sensitive nuclear information be punishable by stronger penalties. My view and that of the regulator is that the Official Secrets Act 1911 provides appropriate protection in such matters of national security. An offence under the Official Secrets Act carries a maximum prison term of 14 years, but the provisions also remove the requirement on the state to prove that the person broke into that prohibited place for a purpose that would compromise the security interests of the state.
To designate specific premises as prohibited places, they must either be owned or occupied by the Crown or deemed as belonging to, or used for the purposes of, the Crown. Clause 86 will therefore insert proposed new section 80A into the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which governs issues relating to the security of uranium enrichment information and technology. The proposed new section will allow for premises holding equipment, software or information that relates to uranium enrichment to be deemed as belonging to the Crown for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act. As a result, the Secretary of State may designate premises holding information that relates to uranium enrichment as prohibited places under that Act. That will provide more appropriate sanctions for theft or attempted theft of that information. The clause represents an important part of protecting our national security.
In answer to the hon. Member for Northavon, let me say that sensitive nuclear information that relates to uranium enrichment that is held on licensed civil nuclear sites is already covered by the Official Secrets Act. It is only right that we ensure that consistent sanctions are available for sensitive nuclear information that is stored or used off licensed civil nuclear sites—for example, at research facilities. The Official Secrets Act is the only appropriate legislation for issues of national security. Given the implications for national security, the sanctions under the Act are the most appropriate; they are a minimum of three and a maximum of 14 years in prison.
Given the scope of the clause that I have outlined, I hope that I have put at rest the fears of the hon. Member for Northavon. To answer his question in a little more detail, I suppose that he is really asking whether the clause applies only to national security issues. The answer is yes. The clause will apply only to persons who steal sensitive nuclear information, where the sanctions are those under the Official Secrets Act.

Charles Hendry: This is clearly an important clause that deals with serious issues. Normally, we would have let this sort of thing go through without further discussion or debate. At the heart of the clause seems to be the rather quaint notion that Government secrets are kept in the places where they are supposed to be and are not sent to the United States, lost in the post or dropped on roundabouts somewhere in the west country. We must consider at exactly which places are covered by such establishments. Clearly, there is an issue when material is in transit. If material is being moved from one of the establishments that the Minister mentioned to research laboratories elsewhere, is it protected while in transit? What happens if some of that material goes astray?

Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry to intervene so soon, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the fact that the clause deals with information, not nuclear materials.

Charles Hendry: I totally understand that. The Government have not so far managed to lose nuclear materials, but they have lost an awful lot of information in various places. If the information is held on a computer disc or a laptop, what happens if it goes astray once it is in transit or someone gains access to it who should not have access to it? What happens in relation to international establishments? The companies that are likely to build the new nuclear power plants are either Arriva, which is French, or Westinghouse, which is American. There are a couple of alternatives, but those are the likely ones. If an issue required close investigation, it is quite possible that that would involve sending the information to an overseas base to be analysed and investigated further. What protection do the Government have for the security of information in those circumstances? Does the clause cover material that is held in different countries?

Brian Binley: I wish to carry my hon. Friend’s argument just a little further. I agree with the Minister that this is a very important clause. I recognise that what we are really doing is carrying on from the restructuring of the Energy Act 2004, but other factors have come to light since the creation of that Act with regard to the safe handling of information. I do not wish to bring up the incidents that have been a great cause of concern to the Government, but we are talking about stronger sanctions for theft and attempted theft under the clause. However, nothing is said about people who lose information, do not follow protocols and are incompetent, negligent or whatever, thereby allowing information to go astray or to fall into undesirable hands.
I do not suggest that we have penal sanctions for those offences—I see them as offences—but there ought to be some consideration of the matter and some tightening up of protocols and of how we keep information safely, especially in this important area. Would the Minister consider that viewpoint, too? It is not covered in the clause.

Malcolm Wicks: Our purpose is to make sure of the most stringent controls on the holders of information, to ensure that sensitive nuclear information is safeguarded. That is the purpose of the clause. It relates to information, not materials, that could be held in different kinds of establishments, including research establishments. We have to make sure that we have a regime in place. I have emphasised the importance of the Official Secrets Act and the appropriate terms of imprisonment. Also, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security, which is the security regulator, is satisfied with the requirements that we are putting in place.
I might need to correspond with the hon. Members for Wealden and for Northampton, South about issues such as whether the information might go to companies registered abroad. I will have to write to them. The issue raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, South is obviously vital, in that everyone in the workplace—everyone involved—should be absolutely vigilant and follow proper procedures. I am sure that that happens and that we have a rigorous regime in place. At the next opportunity, when I talk to the Office for Civil Nuclear Security, I will take to it the Committee’s concerns.

Stephen Ladyman: My reading of the clause suggests that it pertains to inserting into a clause of a terrorism Act something that relates only to the enrichment of uranium. The clause is narrowly restricted to secrets and information about the enrichment of uranium. It goes no wider than that. Concerns by the Liberal Democrats that other information might be hidden are certainly outside the scope of the clause; likewise, the exchange of information about the construction of commercial reactors.

Malcolm Wicks: That is helpful. I will return to some of the issues about sanctions. I have given a broad answer. I am advised that existing regulations—the Uranium Enrichment Technology (Prohibition on Disclosure) Regulations 2004 and the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003—already cover the duties and responsibilities of those who hold such information and deal with sanctions. I am advised that, if information were to get lost in transit, sufficient protections are available on the holders of information on site, off site or in transit. However, I take the point about human error. Everyone needs to be absolutely vigilant.
The places covered are those where research into uranium enrichment technology is undertaken. The technology represents a proliferation risk and needs to be appropriately protected, in line with our international obligations and our national security. Supply chain companies that manufacture parts for uranium enrichment technology are also covered.
Returning to the question of whether such information could be transferred overseas and how it would then be protected, I am advised that that could be done only with agreement on how it would be protected by the receiving authority. Our duty would be to be satisfied with that protection. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87

Offences by bodies corporate etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: This clause will ensure that where offences as set out in the Bill are committed liability can be attributed, and proceedings brought against, the person responsible for the offence, as well as against the corporate body that they work for. Liability can be attributed to, for example, an officer, manager or employee, providing that it is proven that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or is attributable to their neglect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 88, 89, 90 and 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 93, 94, 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: This is my favourite clause and I must address it at some length. It states that the short title for the Act will be the Energy Act 2008.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Smart meters
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations which require smart meters to be installed for gas and electricity in all homes by the end of a specified period of ten years from the date on which the regulations are made.
(2) In this section a “smart meter” means a gas or electricity meter with two-way communication capabilities including communication capability to a display which illustrates household usage and cost per unit consumed.
(3) Regulations made under this section must be made within a period of 12 months beginning on the date on which this Act is passed.’.—[Charles Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

Information on contributions towards environmental taxes
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring energy utilities companies to specify the proportion of those consumers’ energy bills that contribute towards environmental taxes.
(2) In this section “environmental taxes” means—
(a) the Renewables Obligation Certificates,
(b) charges resulting from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and
(c) charges resulting from the Carbon Emissions Reduction Targets and future additional environmental charges.’.—[Charles Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

Annual report on gas storage
‘The Secretary of State shall, in each calendar year following that in which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) his assessment of the appropriate volume of onshore gas storage to ensure long-term energy security, and
(b) the progress that has been made towards reaching that target.’.—[Charles Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6

Feed-in tariffs
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to introduce feed-in tariffs for renewable micro-generation and decentralised energy.
(2) In this section—
“feed-in tariffs” means a requirement on utilities to buy electricity from renewable sources at a feed-in rate to be set by the Secretary of State, dependent on available renewable technology;
“micro-generation” means any generation under 250kW;
“renewable energy” means any form of energy produced in the generation stage without using fossil fuels or emitting carbon;
“a feed-in rate” means a guaranteed payment by the energy suppliers for each kilowatt of electricity generated.’.—[Charles Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

Renewable heat obligation
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations which introduce a renewable heat obligation on suppliers of fossil heating fuels.
(2) In this section a “renewable heat obligation” means a market-based regulation which requires suppliers of fossil fuels for the purpose of heating, to replace, over a specified period, a rising proportion of their supply with metered units of renewable heat energy.
(3) The regulations must provide that renewable heat energy units—
(a) are not eligible for support under the Renewable Obligation on suppliers of electricity, and
(b) may be generated using—
(i) biofuel;
(ii) blended and co-fired biofuel;
(iii) any solid, liquid, gaseous or electrical source of energy (other than fossil fuel or nuclear) which is produced—
(a) wholly by energy from a renewable source, or
(b) wholly by a process powered wholly by such energy;
(iv) electricity, where there is a net surplus of useable heat energy relative to the electrical input.
(4) Regulations made under this section must be made within a period of 12 months beginning on the date on which this Act is passed.’.—[Charles Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Charles Hendry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have had an exciting few moments—democracy in action. We now understand why we are trying to teach countries around the world that they should move towards democracy; it is so that they can go through that rather special moment where people who have spent years arguing for things then turn around and vote against them when they are given the opportunity to do so.
The issue of a renewable heat obligation was raised by many colleagues on Second Reading and by a number of people who have made representations to us about the fact that heat should be included in the Bill. A renewable heat obligation would require energy suppliers to source a percentage of heating fuel from a range of renewable sources, which could include solid, liquid or gaseous fuels produced from biomass, passive solar heating systems and geothermal systems.
About 50 per cent. of the UK’s final energy demand is in space, water and process heating. Around 1 per cent. of heat is currently generated from renewables. That has declined in recent years, both as a proportion of the whole and in absolute terms, as some industrial wood-fired systems have been decommissioned because of tightened emission regulations. Around 85 per cent. of domestic heat, 50 per cent. of industrial heat and 77 per cent. of commercial heat is provided by gas, with the remainder coming from coal and oil.
Heat is responsible for 47 per cent. of the UK’s CO2 emissions and, broken down by sector, roughly 42 per cent. of those emissions come from the residential sector, 43 per cent. from industry and 15 per cent. from commerce. By providing more heat from renewable heat technologies, we could deliver carbon savings of 7.3 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020. The biomass taskforce estimated that 7 per cent. of the UK’s heat energy could be provided from biomass alone. A successful example of a community heating scheme is in Tower Hamlets, which uses a gas-fired combined heat and power plant to provide heat and electricity at 20 per cent. below the cheapest supplier, saving 2,500 tonnes of CO2 a year.
More than two thirds of the energy output to power stations is lost as waste heat. That waste costs the UK economy more than £5 billion a year. It is clear that if our EU targets are to be met, a dedicated support mechanism for renewable heat will be needed. The introduction of an obligation on upstream suppliers of fossil fuels into the transport market creates a precedent for the same sort of mechanism to be applied in the fossil fuel heat market. That could give a steadily increasing incentive to generate cost-efficient renewable heat with a buy-out and recycle mechanism to address the potential for price spikes and provide a means for addressing any under-supply issues. Linking all three markets would enable renewables targets to be met with maximum economic efficiency.

Stephen Ladyman: As the person who in a previous life introduced renewable transport fuel obligations, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that many non-governmental organisations and environmental activists have now decided that they oppose that introduction because one cannot guarantee that the biomass will be produced sustainably. The Government have taken the sensible decision that 5 per cent. can produced sustainably, but they will not go beyond that until we can prove that it can be produced sustainably. If we were to pass the new clause, it would require the Government to do something that they cannot guarantee to do sustainably, and would therefore be far from a green solution to our problems.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. Indeed, my colleagues voted against the RTFO on the grounds that one was not sure about the sustainability of the sources from which it was coming. I wanted to stimulate a debate about heat and about the whole of issue of energy, which has been missing from the debate so far and is missing from the Bill. Looking at it in this way provides the opportunity to address how we will do more to get heat from renewable sources. There are issues, such as the one that he has raised, which provide a challenge to going forward in this way, but that does not negate the importance of trying to do more to get more of our heat from renewable sources than we do at the moment.
Some observers say that, to encourage the development of low-carbon heating, local authorities should be mandated to develop a local energy strategy for heating. In areas with sufficient heat density that would be district heating, which would use the heat demand in public sector buildings to underpin its development. Under such a scheme, planners will be given the power to insist upon district heating, local CHP and other forms of decentralised energy, including microgeneration, in granting permission for developments. A study by the Energy Saving Trust found that in 2000, 83 per cent. of energy usage in the home was for space and water heating. That excludes electric water heating and still represents about 24 per cent. of total UK energy consumption.
Unlike mainland Europe, the UK market for low-carbon and renewable heating remains underdeveloped due to the lack of a coherent strategy. For example, there is no policy to promote the use of renewable heat. The Government have set a target that all new homes should be zero carbon by 2016. The 83 per cent. of energy that a typical home consumes to provide space and water heating breaks down into 59 per cent. for heating and 24 per cent. for hot water. A newly built house with good standards of insulation can reduce heating requirements by about 75 per cent.
The new clause offers one way forward to encourage the generation of more heat from renewable sources. It has significant backing in industry, but I recognise that there are concerns. Essentially, it is a probing new clause to stimulate further clarification from the Minister of what he thinks could be done on this issue. For example, the question of the interaction with the renewable obligation has not yet been addressed properly. Effectively setting two administered prices for biomass under the renewable obligation and the renewable heat obligation will have a potentially disruptive effect on the outlook for investment in biomass power and combined heat and power. Some say that that is also highly unlikely to deliver investment in the heat network infrastructure. Only investment in the boiler or other heating plant would occur as a result of that obligation.
The critical factor in establishing a competitive alternative to gas in the heating market is this infrastructure. I realise that there are problems with this way forward, but I hope that it will give the Minister and other hon. Members the opportunity to talk about what more we can do to address heat within the framework of the Bill.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to be serving under your stewardship again, Mrs. Humble.
The new clause is a very welcome probing clause. There are some difficulties with it and the hon. Member for Wealden has been generous enough to point some of those out. However, it certainly deals with an issue that needs to be addressed.
I am not sure how many members of the Committee have installed renewable heat. I have, but it was a bit of a nightmare process. I have solar thermal panels fitted to my house. I looked to the predecessor of the low-carbon buildings programme and discovered that grants were in rather short supply. I realised very early on that it would be virtually impossible to be one of the few lucky runners who manage to secure a grant each month. I discovered that there was a rather bureaucratic process for the approval of various heating systems and supplies. The kind of heating system that I wanted, which included under-floor heating as well as heated water, did not at that time qualify for the Government scheme. In practice, I therefore had to take the risk of going with a somewhat untested supplier. It was quite an expensive process. It was one that I was willing to invest in, but for many members of the population, it would have been pretty unaffordable.
A real push is needed to shake down the market and establish leading household names as popular suppliers of renewable heat technologies of various kinds at the micro, household level. Costs must also be brought down to make it a more affordable technology. We need to tackle those issues.
As the hon. Member for Wealden said, 47 per cent. of our carbon emissions derive in one way or another from heating. Of that, 12 per cent. is from heat generated by electricity so there is a direct link back to electricity generation. Of the remaining 35 per cent. of direct heating, a very high proportion comes from gas and fossil fuels. We definitely need a long-term framework of financial incentives to incentivise not just individuals at household level and energy suppliers, but communities, social enterprises and others to take advantage of technologies such as combined heat and power. The low-carbon buildings programme is effectively a broken reed and a dead duck, and nothing from the Government has yet supplied it. I am tempted to use another horse racing analogy and say that it has fallen at an early fence. We certainly need some kind of incentive scheme to promote renewable heat at community level, where it is most effective.
I support the new clause, but there are some aspects that I would like to challenge. First, subsection (2) states that the provision would only require
“suppliers of fossil fuels for the purposes of heating, to replace, over a specified period, a rising proportion of their supply with metered units of renewable heat energy.”
Of course, if one looks at the large proportion of heat that is supplied by the generation of electricity, one will see that there are electricity suppliers, such as my own, Ecotricity, that do not have any fossil fuel supply. It is an entirely renewable supplier, so it would not benefit from any incentive under that phraseology because it is not a fossil fuel supplier, even though it is not a supplier of renewable heat as such. To shift and incentivise the market towards renewable heat, we need something a little more inclusive.
There is also the problem of the interplay between the renewable heat obligation and the renewables obligation. That needs to be worked out, as it is not clear how that would work with regard to the energy suppliers. As the hon. Member for Wealden mentioned, the Combined Heat and Power Association argues that one of the most critical elements in getting combined heat and power off the ground at community level is the need to build local infrastructure. That is what makes the critical difference in establishing it as an alternative to gas. I am not clear how the new clause would take us forward on that, so perhaps he will address that point in his closing remarks.
Finally, there is the issue of sustainability, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Thanet. I do not think that that is as much of a problem as there would be with liquid transport biofuels, where there is clearly a big concern about sustainability. I think that a great deal of local heat technology and the use of local biomass from waste products is probably very sustainable, but he is right to say that we need to be sure that certification and the methodologies are in place. I support the new clause and think that it is a welcome probing clause. It asks the most important question: if it is not exactly the right formula, what is and what will the Government do?
I hope that the Minister, on this one occasion, will not promise us yet more consultation exercises, because we have been discussing renewable energy and heat of various kinds in this country for decades and have had endless consultations. He should aim—I shall venture to suggest another horse racing analogy—to be the Kauto Star of British Politics in that area at least and forge ahead in a really proactive way, rather than just resting on his laurels having won one Gold cup and indulging in yet more consultation. It is clear that we need a long-term financial framework, and if not this one, then what?

Alan Whitehead: I strongly support some form of heat obligation or similar, because it is important that we take account of that large area of UK energy, particularly in the context of the 2020 targets that have now been agreed for renewable energy. I support the idea in principle, but the new clause, as has been pointed out, seems to confuse itself substantially with the existing renewables obligation, particularly in its later provisions, and that would need to be fundamentally disentangled.
We should consider further the idea, which was raised in the Committee earlier, of pursuing some form of renewable gas obligation as a substantial proxy for elements of renewable heat obligation because of the substantial part of our heat requirements that is fuelled by gas. I also ought to report to the Committee the sad news that I already have renewable heat on my roof, and nothing whatsoever went wrong with the installation, the application for a grant to assist in the installation or its working. I know that that is a surprise to the Committee.

Stephen Ladyman: Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest, because I have just realised that my home is equipped for burning renewable fuel, as defined by the clause. I have a beautiful house that was built in 1714. It has a huge inglenook fireplace in which logs are the only sensible thing to burn.

Alan Whitehead: It is a biomass heat station.

Stephen Ladyman: Indeed. Were we to pass the new clause, my excellent log supplier would be able to claim renewable obligation certificates, which he would sell to the local coal merchant and reduce the price of my logs. So I suddenly feel attracted to the new clause.
Having said that, I want to emphasise sustainability. There is always a temptation to think that if 5 per cent. of something is good, 10 per cent. must be twice as good. The European Commission has fallen into that trap, where biofuels are concerned. It assumes that because 5 per cent. can be produced renewably, 10 per cent. must be much better. If it cannot be guaranteed that that biomass is produced sustainably and that someone is not cutting down a rain forest or displacing food production to provide it, the carbon benefit of burning that biomass is negative.
After a lot of soul searching and calculations, the Government concluded that we can be confident of producing 5 per cent. of our transport fuel renewably from sustainable biomass production. They went through a great consultation and put huge effort into getting a set of criteria that will guarantee that the material is produced sustainably. I am confident that the renewable transport fuel obligation, as it stands, will have a sustainable net carbon benefit. Go beyond that 5 per cent., however, either to produce transport fuel or to produce a source of biomass for heat production, and it cannot be guaranteed that that will be produced sustainably. It may be that we can work out a way of doing that in the future.
It is unfair to criticise too much, because the hon. Member for Wealden has made it clear that it is a probing new clause that is intended to stimulate debate. I support that intention. I would certainly like to see better ways of producing heat, but it should not be assumed that biomass and waste, and all the other things mentioned in the contributions, have not already been taken into account in calculating how much renewable transport fuel we can produce. They have been taken into account. We already assume that some of that transport fuel will come from waste sources.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable on the subject. Is he aware of the analysis by the Swiss Government, who have already set a framework for analysing whether biofuels are sustainable? That analysis places things such as soya and the American wheat industry at the most unsustainable end of the spectrum. Local biomass, however, is by and large sustainable, and makes a positive contribution to carbon reduction.

Stephen Ladyman: It may be that for small countries local biomass production can be a sustainable source of biomass. We are not a small country. We already have 34 million vehicles on the roads. Five per cent. of our road transport fuel is a huge amount of fuel and will require a huge amount of sustainable biomass. At this point, nobody is able to guarantee that anything more than that 5 per cent. can be produced sustainably. I agree that there are ways of calculating whether biomass is sustainable, but there is no international agreement yet on any of them. I hope we will have an international agreement soon. Whereas I am four square behind getting my hon. Friend the Minister to think about those issues, and behind moving to a position where we can contribute towards heat production from biomass, I counsel the Committee not to push the Government too fast down that road because they already have a huge task of ensuring that the renewable transport fuel obligation is delivered sustainably.

Malcolm Wicks: This has been a good debate. On balance, I would say generously that it has produced more light than heat. I thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who, by convention, cannot speak on these occasions, for helping me with that part of the script. I will not follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham and make comparisons with horses and racing. One gets the impression that an event might be taking place near his constituency. I have been so diligent in swotting up for the Committee, I have missed out on exactly what gold cup it is.
We are all very impressed that the hon. Member for Cheltenham has installed solar panels; that is a very worthy and interesting experience. I am bound to say that, given his party’s opposition to most forms of energy, including nuclear and fossil fuels, and given that his party comrades have objected to wind farm after wind farm, I have a horrible feeling that he has installed solar panels out of some optimistic belief that the Liberal Democrats might form a Government and that that will be his family’s only form of heating.
 Martin Horwood rose—

Malcolm Wicks: I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to confirm my hypothesis.

Martin Horwood: The Minister ought to give way on this. As far as I know, the only form of energy that we have objected to is nuclear. We even support fossil fuel generation with carbon capture and storage. We have supported every form of renewable energy, including geothermal, which the Minister left out of the clause. Geothermal energy is being used viably by Gloucestershire police in its new headquarters and Chelsea Building Society in its new call centre, both of which are in or near my constituency and both of which I supported.

Malcolm Wicks: We will leave it there. I suspect that the sporting event that the hon. Gentleman has alluded to on nine or 10 occasions will produce quantities of biomass that might help him with the renewables issue. 
Energy consumed for heating accounts for about 40 per cent. of the UK’s primary energy consumption. We have heard about the considerable proportion of CO2 that it produces. Heat is produced and used by a huge number of consumers, ranging from individual householders to very large industrial plants. In thinking about tackling climate change, heat is clearly a sector that we cannot afford to ignore. The Government already have a number of policies in place to tackle emissions from heat, including the European Union emissions trading scheme, energy efficiency measures generally and fuel poverty initiatives.
With programmes such as the low-carbon building programme, the energy efficiency commitment and, in future, the carbon emissions reduction target, we are focusing on improving the energy efficiency of dwellings, thereby reducing demand for heat. A third of the emissions savings estimated from the measures set out in the energy White Paper will result from energy efficiency policies, and much of that will relate to reductions in heat demand. Most of the estimated 100,000 microgenerators in the UK—including our colleague—are using renewable heat technologies such as solar and ground source heating.
Our minds, however, are increasingly focused on renewable heat, particularly given the EU target of 20 per cent. of our energy in Europe coming from renewables by 2020. We need to do more to tackle heat emissions if we are to meet that challenging target. The Prime Minister, in his speech to the WWF in November last year, announced that we will do more and introduce measures as part of the renewable energy strategy next summer.
For that reason, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Wealden. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce a renewable heat obligation, which would require suppliers of fossil fuel heating to source an increasing proportion of their fuels from renewables. However, I am sure that the Committee will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe that it is premature to amend the Bill in that way. Tackling carbon dioxide emissions from heat is not straightforward. Any step to encourage greater use of renewable heating options would need to consider a wide range of factors, including the different needs of various customer groups and the large range of technologies available, each of which has different potentials, costs and practical implications with regard to the type of support that would deliver the best outcomes.
We are in the middle of reviewing our policy on heat, and the new clause would pre-empt that work. Last year’s energy White Paper, “Meeting the Energy Challenge”, restated the Government’s commitment to decarbonising heat and to increasing the use of renewable heat. Specifically, we said that we would
“conduct further work into the policy options available to reduce the carbon impact of heat and its use in order to determine a strategy for heat. The work will look at the full range of policy options”.
Since then, the Office of Climate Change, working closely with several Departments, including my own, has undertaken an in-depth study of heat. That project has focused on providing an overview of heat and the cooling sector—air cooling is quite important in this regard—to analyse the carbon impact of heat generation and cooling, to assess the potential to reduce that and to identify and assess alternative or additional policy mechanisms.
On 31 January, the project culminated in the publication of “Heat Call for Evidence”, which seeks further information on which the Government can base the next stage of our work. It outlines our understanding of the opportunities and prospects for renewable heat and examines options for possible financial support mechanisms to promote it, including capital grants, a feed-in tariff and a renewable heat obligation. The call for evidence will feed valuable information and insight into our strategy in 2009.
The call for evidence also considers issues such as how to promote renewable heat, including biogas; the role of low-carbon electricity and heating; how surplus heat can be captured, transported and used, especially where we have a well established gas network; options to reduce the heating needs of existing buildings, focusing primarily on the residential sector; the relationship between the EU emissions trading scheme and heating; the prospects for including heat in existing and proposed carbon markets; the non-financial barriers to the greater deployment of renewable heat technologies that will need to be tackled alongside any financial support mechanism; the potential for district heating; and the possible incentives and regulatory changes necessary for an expansion of such schemes.
Complex issues need to be worked through before we can know that a renewable heat obligation could work or whether it would be the most cost-effective support mechanism for heat. For example, unlike electricity, heat is not supplied directly to end users; rather, they are sold a range of heating fuels. The renewables obligation works because the end product is uniform. That allows us easily to measure how much of it is supplied and to impose an obligation to supply a percentage of it from a renewable source. The situation is not as straightforward with heat.
I do not agree that we should commit the Government to pursuing a particular financial support mechanism for heat, because all the options and implications of implementation have not yet been fully evaluated, and there is no guarantee that the measures that we will propose in the renewable energy strategy could be implemented by the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet talked about biofuels, and he is a great expert on these issues because of his ministerial experience. I can, in a sense, confirm what he was saying, in that we take concerns about unsustainable sources of biofuels very seriously. The Government’s commitment to biofuels is subject to their being sustainable. The renewable transport fuel obligation is designed to encourage the use of only the right type of biofuels. It will require companies to report on the carbon that the biofuel has saved and the wider environmental impact. We are keen to move beyond that to mandatory standards as soon as we can.
We are introducing similar reporting requirements for the use of biomass under the renewables obligation. We will be able to keep the issue under review through the introduction of sustainability reporting for biomass users. That will enable us to monitor any sudden growth in the use of a biomass fuel and expose biomass sources to public scrutiny. A survey of the scientific evidence on the environmental impact of biofuels, commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is due to be published shortly.
No doubt, that will be disappointing news to the hon. Member for Wealden, who proposed the new clause. However, as he has indicated, it was probing in nature and has provoked a useful debate. Given the importance of tackling emissions from heat, only once we have finished the necessary analysis will it be appropriate to reach a decision on whether and what type of legislation is necessary. I give no apologies for that, because I am confident that taking the time to consider matters properly will help us to deliver the right policy. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Wealden will consider withdrawing the motion.

Charles Hendry: The Minister thinks that I will probably be disappointed by his rejection of the new clause, but I have moved beyond the stage of disappointment during the past few weeks. I have accepted that, however much he may say that he is grateful or sympathetic, he will proceed to say that the amendment or new clause is completely unacceptable to the Government. However, the Minister has made a good case on this subject. As I said in moving the new clause, it is a probing one, because I feel that we need to do more about renewable heat, heat loss and other such issues. It was a way of stimulating that debate, as it has done so. I think that there is overwhelming agreement that more needs to be done.

Malcolm Wicks: In a spirit of generosity, I think that the hon. Gentleman was about to withdraw the motion, and I thank him for that. To encourage him further, when I said that the renewable energy strategy would be available next summer, I was being too pessimistic about the speed and energy of my officials. In fact, it will be available next spring.

Charles Hendry: I am delighted that my new clause has forced the Minister’s officials to bring forward the case and to work through the night burning all that oil and creating all that heat to provide us with the strategy in due course.

Malcolm Wicks: Not oil, but biomass.

Charles Hendry: That is more feasible, perhaps, than wind turbines on the roof of the Department.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We have addressed the main questions, and some aspects of the idea of a renewable heat obligation certainly need further thought. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Duty to encourage a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases
‘In section 3A of the Electricity Act (c. 29) (the principal objective and general duties of the Secretary of State and the Authority), at end of subsection (1), insert “while reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases in accordance with Government targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.’.—[Charles Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Charles Hendry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 12—Duties of the regulatory authority —
‘(1) For sections 4AA(1) and (2) of the Gas Act 1986 (c.44) substitute—
“(1) The principal objective of the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (in this Act referred to as “the Authority”) in carrying out their respective functions under this Part is to deliver a secure and sustainable energy system operating within greenhouse gas emission limits notified by the Secretary of State to the Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008 [c. ].
(2) The Secretary of State and the Authority shall carry out those functions in the manner which he or it considers is best calculated to further the principal objective, having regard to—
(a) the protection of the interests of consumers in relation to gas or heat conveyed through pipes, through effective competition between persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with, the transportation or supply of gas or heat; and
(b) the need to secure that, so far as it is economical to meet them, all reasonable demands in Great Britain for gas and heat conveyed though pipes are met; and
(c) the need to secure that licence holders are able to finance the activities which are the subject of obligations imposed by or under this Part or the Utilities Act 2000 (c.27).”
(2) For section 3(1) and (2) of the Electricity Act 1989 (c.29) substitute—
“(1) The principal objective of the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (in this Act referred to as “the Authority”) in carrying out their respective functions under this Part is to deliver a secure and sustainable energy system operating within greenhouse gas emission limits notified by the Secretary of State to the Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008 [c ].
(2) The Secretary of State and the Authority shall carry out those functions in the manner which he or it considers is best calculated to further the principal objective, having regard to—
(a) the protection of the interests of consumers in relation to electricity conveyed by distribution systems, through effective competition between persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with, the generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electriciy; and
(b) the need to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met; and
(c) the need to secure that licence holders are able to finance the activities which are the subject of obligations imposed by or under this Part of the Utilities Act 2000 (c.27).”’.
New clause 13—Access for renewable energy to the electricity and gas grids—
‘(1) After section 3A of the 1989 Electricity Act (c.29) there is inserted—
“3B Access for renewable energy to the electricity networks
(1) In carrying out their respective functions, the Secretary of State and the Authority shall ensure that—
(a) transmission system operators and distribution system operators guarantee the transmission and distribution of electricity produced from renewable energy sources, without prejudice to the maintenance of the reliability and safety of the grid;
(b) transmission system operators and distribution system operators provide for priority access to the grid system for electricity produced from renewable energy sources;
(c) when dispatching electricity generating installations, transmission system operators shall give priority to generating installations using renewable energy sources insofar as the security of the national electricity system permits;
(d) transmission system operators and distribution system operators are required to set up and publish their standard rules relating to the bearing and sharing of costs of technical adaptations, including grid connections and grid reinforcements, which are necessary in order to integrate new producers feeding electricity produced from renewable energy sources into the interconnected grid, and that such rules—
(i) shall be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking particular account of all the costs and benefits associated with the connection of these producers to the grid and of the particular circumstances of producers located in peripheral regions and in regions of low population density,
(ii) may provide for different types of connection, and
(iii) shall provide for the sharing of costs to be enforced by a mechanism based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking into account the benefits which initially and subsequently connected producers as well as transmission system operators and distribution system operators derive from connections;
(e) transmission system operators and distribution system operators are required to provide any new producer wishing to be connected to the system with a comprehensive and detailed estimate of the costs associated with the connection;
(f) the charging of transmission and distribution fees does not discriminate against electricity from renewable energy sources, including in particular electricity from renewable energy sources produced in peripheral regions, such as island regions, and in regions of low population densitiy;
(g) fees charged by transmission system operators and distribution system operators for the transmission and distribution of electricity from plants using renewable energy souces reflect realisable cost benefits resulting from the plant’s connection to the network.
(2) The Secretary of State shall review and take the necessary measures to improve the frameworks and rules for bearing and sharing of costs referred to in paragraph (d) by 30th June 2011 at the latest, and every two years thereafter, in order to ensure the intergration of new producers.
(2) After section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 (c.44) there is inserted—
“4AB Access for renewable gas to the gas networks
(1) In carrying out their respective functions, the Secretary of State and the Authority shall ensure that—
(a) gas network operators guarantee the transport of gas produced from renewable energy sources, without prejudice to the maintenance of the reliability and safety of the gas networks;
(b) gas network operators provide for priority access to the gas networks system for gas produced from renewable energy sources;
(c) when dispatching gas, network operators shall give priority to renewable energy sources insofar as the security of the national gas system permits;
(d) gas network operators are required to set up and publish their standard rules relating to the bearing and sharing of costs of technical adaptations, such as gas network connections and gas network upgrades, which are necessary in order to integrate new producers feeding gas produced from renewable energy sources in to the interconnected gas networks, and that such rules—
(i) shall be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking particular account of all the costs and benefits associated with the connection of these producers to the gas networks and of the particular circumstances of producers located in peripheral regions and in regions of low population density,
(ii) may provide for different types of connection, and
(iii) shall provide for the sharing of costs to be enforced by a mechanism based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking into account the benefits which initially and subsequently connected producers as well as gas network operators derive from the connections;
(e) gas network operators are required to provide any new producer wishing to be connected to the system with a comprehensive and detailed estimate of the costs associated with the connection;
(f) the charging of transport fees does not discriminate against gas from renewable energy sources, including in particular gas from renewable energy sources produced in peripheral regions, such as island regions, and in regions of low population densitiy; and
(g) fees charged by gas network operators for the transport of gas from plants using renewable energy sources reflect realisable cost benefits resulting from the plant’s connection to the network.
(2) The Secretary of State shall review and take the necessary measures to improve the frameworks and rules for bearing and sharing of costs referred to in paragraph (d) by 30th June 2011 at the latest, and every two years thereafter, in order to ensure the integration of new producers.”’.

Charles Hendry: We are going to try again to persuade the Minister that the new clause contains matters that are not yet included in the scope of the Bill. Even at this late stage, as we reach the twilight of the Committee stage, I hope that the Minister will see the light—if one can see the light in twilight—and recognise that further changes could be made to the Bill.
The new clause relates to the primary duties of Ofgem—again, something that was mentioned many times on Second reading and during the submissions that have been made to us. In 2000, Ofgem was given new duties to contribute to the Government’s social and environmental objectives. In 2004, it was given a duty to contribute towards sustainable development. The new duties were additional to Ofgem’s primary duty, which did not change. In addition to its primary objective, Ofgem has a series of 11 secondary duties.
We have looked at the work being done on the issue by the Sustainable Development Commission, such as its report, “Lost in Transmission?”, in which it made a compelling case about why Ofgem’s remit should be changed. It recognised that Ofgem’s remit needs to adapt to reflect the fact that the world has moved on and the problems that society faces have changed.
We can have a debate about Ofgem’s work to protect consumers—it does a good job and is well led as an organisation—but it is not doing as much as it needs to do to move us towards a system in which we use more renewables than fossil fuels. The UK currently generates 5 per cent. of its electricity and 2 per cent. of its energy from renewables, compared with 12 per cent. of electricity and 5.8 per cent. of total energy generated from renewables in Germany.
A huge number of onshore wind applications are stuck in the planning system. If the UK is to achieve its target of 15 per cent. renewable energy by 2020, between 35 and 40 per cent. of all electricity must come from renewable sources. That will not be achievable without a concerted effort and a clearer direction to Ofgem about the work that it must do.
In addition, there are considerations that relate to connectivity to the national grid, which could also be addressed by reforming the primary duties for Ofgem. An enormous amount of the national grid network is reaching the end of its lifetime and will need to be replaced. At the moment, Ofgem is required to connect new installations in the order in which the applications are made. So it is connecting some wind farms that might not get planning consent for some years, but others, which have been given planning consent, will not be connected to the national grid for some years to come. Clearly, that does not make sense as a coherent strategy. Ofgem should have more powers to intervene and to suggest that installations should be connected in an order that reflects their viability and the extent to which they can make a contribution to promoting renewables.
The WWF, which the Minister quoted in relation to the Prime Minister, said:
“The remit of Ofgem was established before the urgency of climate change became clear. WWF believes its primary remit should be updated to include efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the energy sector.”
Similarly the Sustainable Development Commission has recommended that Ofgem’s duties should be changed to include strong reference to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that the Bill should
“Reform the gas and electricity regulator... so that its primary purpose is the protection of the environment and customers.”
The Energy Saving Trust said:
“Ofgem’s current primary responsibility to promote effective competition in the energy sector means it does not promote increased energy efficiency and renewables as much as it could. Ofgem’s remit should be altered by the Bill to include a primary responsibility for the delivery of a low carbon energy system”.
The British Wind Energy Association said:
“Ofgem’s interpretation of its rules mean National Grid cannot invest in upgrading connection and cabling for new wind farms until developers are able to underwrite their costs. Companies are unable to do this until their schemes are approved and they have secured finance, which can take several years: under current arrangements they would then have to wait further for grid upgrades before they can generate. Ofgem fears that early investment in system reinforcement would result in stranded assets being built... We believe that Ofgem must be more strongly directed to give higher priorities to tackling climate change and increasing security of supply alongside itself economic focus.”
When the Sustainable Development Commission produced its report, it proposed three options, one of which was to create a primary duty for environmental matters and climate change issues and to put that ahead of consumers’ interests. That is a difficult position to sustain in the current climate, when we are all concerned about fuel poverty and how people will pay their bills. There must be a continuing primary duty to protect consumers. The SDC also suggested an option whereby those issues would be viewed in tandem. New clause 11 would add to its primary duty about protecting consumers and includes the words,
“while reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases in accordance with Government targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions”.
A clear body of opinion sees that as the right way forward.
The SDC has looked into this in great detail, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the new clause and recognise that we need to address this matter to meet our climate change objectives. We are reaching the final moments of the Committee. The prospect that we are soon to be released is almost like Christmas. We therefore ask the Minister to give us that little Christmas present—that final little nugget after weeks of saying no in the Gallic manner—and say, “Yes, here’s an issue that we can support. Here’s an issue that we should rally round,” and accept the new clause.

Alan Whitehead: I want to speak to new clause 12, which is a more comprehensive version of new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Wealden. I would not characterise these as Christmas clauses, but rather as owl of Minerva clauses, in that the best bit comes just before the ending. In that case, it was Greek civilisation, but we will not go down that road.
The purpose of new clause 12 is simply to reverse the subsidiary nature of the clauses within Ofgem’s remit, which concern sustainability and environmental obligations, and place them as a principle objective. Rapid progress is being made to ensure that our future energy concerns relate to climate change, sustainability, renewable energy and the use of other forms of energy, either more economically or through the use of technologies that make them more sustainable.
The idea that the energy regulator is tasked to ensure that that is a primary consideration is very important. It is also important because Ofgem has suffused the considerations of the Committee—it has a very important role and undertakes a whole range of activities that relate to grid connections, the operation of the energy market, arrangements that relate to renewables and all sorts of similar matters. Therefore, having a primary duty to do that is important, but of course I recognise and understand that simply to do so would be to fundamentally disrupt the range of considerations that Ofgem should properly take into account.
Consequently, in furtherance to its principal objective, new clause 12 lists a number of considerations that Ofgem should have regard to, which will effectively fall within its primary duty. At the moment, that duty is set out thus:
“to protect the interests of consumers, present and future, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with, the shipping, transportation or supply of gas conveyed through pipes, and the generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electricity or the provision or use of electricity interconnectors.”
As hon. Members will understand, those elements of the primary duty would be reflected in the things that Ofgem should consider in pursuit of its primary objective—it is effectively a tandem arrangement as far as those objectives are concerned.
The issue is certainly beyond serious dispute, but there have been some difficulties, not necessarily because Ofgem is a perverse organisation that does not want to pursue environmental objectives, but rather because of the way in which its duties and powers are set out. The hon. Member for Wealden mentioned some of those difficulties in relation to the connection of transmission for renewables and various other activities, and I believe that they have resulted from the subsidiary nature of the contribution to the achievements of sustainable development in Ofgem’s present remit. That is a result first of the systematic undervaluing of carbon by Ofgem in its calculations of what is meant by significant financial implications and because of Government guidance from 2004, which was supposed to help Ofgem in its interpretation of social and environmental issues, but which probably had the opposite effect.
In their guidance, the Government stated:
“where the Government wish to implement social and environmental measures which could have significant financial implications for consumers or for regulated companies, these will be implemented by Ministers, rather than the Authority, by means of specific primary or secondary legislation.”
The interpretation of what is a “significant financial implication” in the context of Ofgem’s primary duty has led to conclusions that do not advance the question of sustainability and environmental management in the way that is increasingly becoming imperative in the management of energy supplies. At the very least, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in replying to these questions, will consider whether there should be new guidance for Ofgem, because I do not think that the guidance does the job that it was originally intended to do; indeed, it could have perverse consequences for Ofgem’s overall role.
Finally, I emphasise that the idea of setting out principal and subsidiary objectives in the way that is set out in new clause 12 is not unique for regulators. Indeed, the rail regulator has a duty to contribute to sustainable development that ranks alongside the duty to promote competition and is not subsidiary to it. Therefore, regulators can work within a competitive environment with that duty; rather, such a framework of duties can probably contribute to the development of a workable and competitive environment, while sustainable objectives are pursued, in the way that I imagine everyone on the Committee wants us to proceed in respect of energy management.

Steve Webb: The Liberal Democrats have a lot of sympathy with the goals in new clauses 11 and 12, which touch on the same issue—Ofgem’s remit—and goals as new clause 13, which has not been discussed even though it is grouped with new clauses 11 and 12, so I assume that it is in order to refer to it.
Clearly, there are two slightly different approaches to Ofgem’s remit. There is a more comprehensive approach from the hon. Member for Wealden in new clause 11, which seems to be more effective, because it appears to cover both gas and electricity legislation, and I sense that it might be preferable to the other approach. Nevertheless, the goal of both approaches seems to be right. We all know that, if we have one primary duty or one priority, we will focus our attention; if we have 10 priorities, we have no priorities. My worry with the current Ofgem structure is that the primary duty overrides and that, when there is a conflict between the primary duty and the subsidiary duty, the primary one, by definition, dominates.
From our point of view, sustainability and adherence to greenhouse gas targets are not at all subsidiary matters—this is the future of the planet, for goodness’ sake. The idea that sustainability is a subsidiary consideration—I hesitate to say that it is an afterthought, but it is certainly a subsidiary consideration—just seems wrong to us.
We agree with the Sustainable Development Commission’s suggestion that Ofgem’s primary duty should be aligned to Government energy and environment policy; why would it not be aligned to it? The fact that there could be disjunction between the two suggests that change to the remit is needed. In passing, I note that the Sustainable Development Commission also recommends that energy and environment policy should be handled by one Secretary of State; having a view on that may be above the Minister’s pay grade, but it is a very good recommendation and one that we have implemented in our party.
The question that we have not yet considered is what does Ofgem think of all this. Obviously, Ofgem would not dream of trespassing on party political matters, but it produced a briefing for us, called “The Role of Ofgem in a Changing Climate”, in which it said that these are obviously matters for politicians and Departments to decide, but it then came up with a raft of reasons why we should not change its remit. One of the reasons that Ofgem gives in the briefing is that we should judge it by its actions on sustainable energy networks and markets. It lists a set of bullet points of things that it has done, saying that it has advised the Government and promoted choice. However, I cannot help smiling because one of the actions that we are supposed to commend it for is its
“Leadership role on smart metering, including overseeing Government backed 10m trials (ongoing since 2005).”
I cannot help feeling that, if the remit for sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions had been primary rather than secondary, a three-year smart meter trial might have led us to some action. In a sense, it is probably unfair to criticise Ofgem for that; it has simply administered the Government’s trials. However, in no sense has it been driving smart metering forward, although I am sure that it has done a very competent job of administering trials.
Perhaps I am pointing the finger in the wrong place and pointing it unfairly at Ofgem. However, I just think that perhaps it would have been pressuring Ministers and saying, “Look, we have got a remit to fulfil. We are supposed to be promoting sustainable energy. You are dragging your heels on smart meters. How about pulling your finger out”—metaphorically—“and getting on with it?” If Ofgem had been given that remit, there might have been more pressure on the Government to act on some of these issues. Therefore, of the two new clauses, new clause 12 probably gets closest to the mark, but we would very much support the spirit of those people who put sustainability and curbing greenhouse gas emissions right up there, in the headlines, at the top.
Briefly, new clause 13 is about preferential access to the grid for renewables. A brief reference was made to that earlier and again it is something that we support. The danger is that the grid currently picks off the cheapest marginal source of supply. If we are serious about getting renewables into the mainstream, rather than having them as just a peripheral additional supply, some sort of preferential arrangement would complement what we have been talking about under the Bill, such as the renewables obligation. It will be interesting to see why the Government have not adopted that approach. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it.

Alan Whitehead: I am conscious that I tabled new clause 13, but have not moved it. I wish to do so.

Joan Humble: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not moving the clause but speaking to it. His new clause has been grouped with new clause 11.

Alan Whitehead: I am conscious, therefore, that I should have spoken to new clause 13 when I spoke to new clause 12. I apologise that I failed to do so. I will not detain the Committee for any length of time other than to commend the idea about grid connections.
Clause 40, which we discussed what seems like a very long time ago, made great strides on the grid connection for offshore renewable energy. I welcomed the Minister’s verbal indication of further consideration over whether there should be a hub-and-spoke arrangement for future grid connections as the offshore grid develops. I also note the proposed clauses in the marine Bill White Paper concerning how permissions for offshore grid connections will be undertaken. Nevertheless, problems will continue to arise upon landfall in the way that they currently exist for connections for land-based wind farms.
There is the so-called Scottish queue of something like 9 GW of potential power that remains to be connected up because of the considerations relating to how connection is undertaken. Viable schemes that can proceed have a lengthy period of waiting prior to going online because the capacity of the grid is taken up by existing operators. Those operators reserve elements of the grid according to their capacity operation, which does not necessarily take place.
Elements of the grid for dealing with potential grid failures are normally not used because failures to the grid are reducing considerably. Therefore, a connection and management regime on the basis of that marginal, additional capacity according to the priorities set out in new clause 13 would offer a very positive way to deal with grid connection problems.
The clause prioritises renewable connections, but the effect would be to ensure that the way that the grid connection arrangements were laid out meant that the full management capacity of the grid was used in parallel, rather than in sequence. Therefore, that would cause the grid to be used in a much more efficient way and bring on the considerations of how the grid is strengthened—at what point on the grid new connections are landed and how they go into the high-power grid.
For all those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister would look carefully at the considerations in the new clause. I anticipate that he will suggest that it might be withdrawn, but it is on the amendment paper, in part, at least to underline that we have to get grid connections right in the future, so as to bring out the benefits of renewables, which are underlined by the Bill and are essential to our future targets.

Malcolm Wicks: This matter has occasioned a lot of parliamentary and wider interest, so it is useful that we have had a good discussion. There are three new clauses here, so I am afraid that it will take a little while for me to present my analysis.
The hon. Member for Wealden, hoped that, at this late hour, I would be able to satisfy him. My endeavour is to satisfy him; I want to make him happy. I am sure that during the course of my speech, I will do that, but with only one small, rather specific and technical qualification, which is the tedious business, sadly, of my not being able to accept his new clause. Apart from that, I think that he will be satisfied.
We have heard a lot in the debate as to whether the duties and powers of Ofgem—I mean here the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—are still fit for purpose in the light of the challenges that we face to meet our EU 2020 targets. New clauses 11 and 12 in particular attempt to address what some hon. Members feel is perhaps an imbalance in Ofgem’s overall focus. Before I cover the specific issues raised by new clauses 11 and 12, I thought it might be helpful if I took the time to remind the Committee of the rationale for having an independent economic regulator for the electricity and gas markets.
The Government are committed to delivering safe, secure and sustainable energy supplies through independently regulated energy markets, promoting competition where possible. Ofgem has been specifically established as the independent regulator, with consumer protection and competition as its primary duty. The intention of independent regulation is to provide the regulatory stability necessary for investor confidence through independence from Government and a clear statutory framework; to introduce competition into the market wherever possible; and to regulate the prices of any natural monopolies, such as networks, where not.
Investments in the gas and electricity industry, be it networks or generation, are generally long term and returns are made over a long period. Once the investments have been made and the infrastructure built, it can be costly for companies to pull out. It is the combination of Ofgem’s independence—which demonstrates that regulatory decisions about the market will be made for the long term on an economic, not a political, basis—and a clear statutory framework of duties in which to take its decisions that provides companies with the stability and regulatory certainty that they need to invest with confidence in the power stations, gas infrastructures and electricity networks that we need in the UK.
A competitive market with sufficient, timely investment brings benefits for consumers by providing the most cost-effective way of delivering our energy objectives of tackling climate change and ensuring secure supplies of energy. Ofgem also regulates prices in elements of the gas and electricity system that are natural monopolies. That ensures that the owners of the pipes and wires do not abuse their monopoly power and helps to drive efficiencies in the system. As part of that, Ofgem sets price controls to limit the charges for access to those networks and provides incentives for the companies regarding investment and service. That helps to ensure that costs to consumers are minimised as far as possible.
Changing the nature of Ofgem’s remit so that it will no longer primarily be an economic regulator, as new clause 12 proposes, without sufficient analysis of the potential impact on the broader market and other unintended consequences, would be imprudent. Placing sustainability above consumer protection and competition would take Ofgem’s primary focus away from the latter. I have already discussed some of the reasons why we believe that it is important that Ofgem retains its economic focus. Moreover, the new clause proposes giving Ofgem a primary duty to deliver sustainability, but no practical powers or tools to make it possible, as many of the important policies such as the design of the renewables obligation and other trading schemes are the remit of Government, and rightly so.
A recent Select Committee report in the other place on regulators concluded that they are “creatures of statute”, and that therefore, an effective statutory remit for a regulator is one that is, above all else, clear. The report also concluded that regulators need limited and relatively narrow duties.
A dual primary duty, as suggested in new clause 11, would require Ofgem to make trade-offs between the economic interests of consumers and promoting sustainability. How, for example, would Ofgem be able to decide what should take precedence when making decisions about whether to encourage renewable technologies, which are generally more expensive, or to keep costs down for consumers to minimise fuel poverty? It is only right for an elected Government to make the political decisions about such matters. That is why the Secretary of State provides guidance to Ofgem on social and environmental policy, to which Ofgem must have regard. In light of significant developments in this area since the guidance was last updated, we intend, as the Secretary of State announced yesterday, to consult on new environmental and social guidance for Ofgem shortly.
The guidance will set out the Government’s expectation of the contribution Ofgem should make on social and environmental issues. It will cover issues such as facilitating the faster deployment of renewables, both on and offshore, and the development of local or distributed energy. On the social side it will, among other things, address our expectation that Ofgem will take a strong lead in co-ordinating activity to help low-income and vulnerable customers.
Rather than a knee-jerk reaction to change Ofgem’s remit and duties we should step back and look at what the potential barriers to deploying more renewables actually are. Stakeholders have highlighted several key areas of concern in relation to the deployment of renewables, particularly around grid access, transmission and charging. Some point to Ofgem’s remit as the cause, but that oversimplifies the problem. The grid-related issues are complex and interconnected and rather than believing that we can solve them at a single stroke by changing Ofgem’s remit, we need to develop a more rounded strategy.
That is why we are developing our renewable energy strategy, which we have discussed, to be launched in Spring 2009. As part of that we will be launching a consultation this summer that will consider what more we should do to increase renewable energy production to meet our share of the EU 2020 renewables target, including how we can ensure renewable projects secure swift connection to the grid. We need to look at the rules governing access to the grid and at ways of speeding up the delivery of new infrastructure. We need to be sure that the grid as a whole is equipped to handle significant increases in largely intermittent renewable generation.

Steve Webb: A few pages back, the Minister described changing Ofgem’s remit as a knee-jerk reaction, but would he not accept that the Sustainability Development Commission, which was set up by his Government, has recommended this in a thoughtful, multi-page report after many months of thinking about it? Is he saying that its approach is knee-jerk? Would he not accept that there is a rigorous, carefully thought through case for doing this?

Malcolm Wicks: I was not talking about the SDC’s report, which, as ever from the SDC, was an important document. That does not mean that we always have to agree with independent commissions.

Steve Webb: It is not knee-jerk.

Malcolm Wicks: No, I did not say that that report was knee-jerk. Some people think that changing Ofgem’s responsibilities is the sole answer to these problems and I would describe that as knee-jerk, but not the SDC. When we more fully understand the issues and barriers in the context of a much more ambitious renewables target—and the best way to overcome them—we can make any changes needed to deliver the outcomes.
Ofgem already has a secondary duty on sustainability, and has been criticised for not delivering on that. That is unfair, in the light of the work that it has taken forward on a number of projects. For example, Ofgem and my Department are already working on incentives for energy businesses to be innovative in terms of sustainability and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and losses of gas and electricity, through their price control work. Ofgem is also working with my Department on other projects, such as the important transmission access review.
In summary, there are strong reasons for retaining Ofgem’s focus on consumers and competition. However, we know that, as well as updating its guidance, there is further work to do in understanding the potential barriers to deploying more renewables—grid-related issues, for example. Those barriers will be considered as part of our strategy for meeting the European 2020 target.

Charles Hendry: Can the Minister tell us what the time scale for the consultation process will be? It could clearly go on for some time. It is six months since the SDC produced its report and there has therefore been a good opportunity to look at the issues in that report and take account of its recommendations. Will the consultation be over quickly or could it take a long time?
In relation to that, changes to Ofgem’s primary duties would require primary legislation, unless the Minister were to include in the Bill powers to change those duties by secondary legislation. Is he prepared to table an amendment on Report, or in another place, that would allow the duties to be changed by secondary legislation, if that were what his consultation concluded?

Malcolm Wicks: To clarify, is the question about the time scale for the new guidance for Ofgem? Sorry, I may have misunderstood.

Charles Hendry: The Minister said that the Government were about to consult on the process for giving more powers or changing the remit. How long will that consultation take?

Malcolm Wicks: We will consult in the spring and expect to issue new guidance by the end of 2008.
Can I go on to new clause 13? Tempting though it would be to accept the new clause, we wish to resist it. The new clause seeks to provide priority access for electricity and gas produced from renewable energy sources to the electricity and gas transmission and distribution systems. The new clause places new duties on the Secretary of State and the authority, which would govern how they discharge their functions under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986, as amended.
The proposed text on access for renewable energy to electricity networks is taken from the draft EU renewables directive, and many of the provisions referred to in the new clause were contained in the 2001 renewables directive. Those provisions are already in place in Great Britain through licence conditions and underlying industry codes. The key difference is that the new clause would introduce a requirement to mandate priority access to the grid for electricity from renewable sources. That is currently a discretionary matter for member states. Although gas is not covered in the EU renewables directive, the text has also been applied to gas through the proposed new section 4AB in the new clause.
I will first address access for renewable energy to the electricity networks, and then access for renewable gas to the gas networks. We are giving careful consideration to the merits of prioritising renewable access to the grid, and we need to address a number of issues. First, there is some uncertainty about the meaning of priority access in the national context. It is important that we do not introduce uncertainty for existing generators and those planning future investments. We need to be careful not to discourage essential investment in all generating technologies.
The next consideration is whether priority access is consistent with our wider energy policy goals, and whether it is the best route to accelerate growth in renewable generation and integrate what is largely variable generation into the electricity networks, while keeping those networks safe and reliable. Offshore and onshore wind generation is likely to play the largest part in meeting our renewable energy targets in 2020. To accommodate such variable renewable generation, it will be essential to have a significant amount of responsive back-up generation to maintain system reliability. A mixed-generating profile is therefore consistent with, rather than opposed to, our ambitions for renewable generation.
We need to ensure that the access regime encourages essential investment to come forward. If conventional generation were displaced because of the prioritisation of access for renewable generation for a period of time, or if new investments in reserve capacity were not made, there are foreseeable difficulties for maintaining a reliable electricity system. We are considering reforms to grid access arrangements to ensure that the regulatory framework remains fit for purpose in the medium and longer term, and to speed up the connection of renewable generation as part of the transmission access review with Ofgem. An interim report of the review has been published and my Department and Ofgem are working towards a final report in May 2008. We will work further on the matter as we work with industry to deliver the conclusions of the review and as we develop the renewable energy strategy. That may mean bringing forward, in the strategy, further measures to speed up the connection of renewable generation. Clearly, if we decide that the Commission’s proposals for priority access as set out in the draft directive is the right approach, the proposals will be implemented in the UK.
On the second part of proposed new clause 13, the Government are keen to support and investigate the potential of renewable gas to contribute to the UK’s share of our European target. Renewable gas, or biogas, is produced by feeding organic material such as food waste, sewage sludge, animal slurries or energy crops into an anaerobic digestion plant—if my intelligence is right, such a plant is currently the subject of some controversy in Ambridge—or from the decomposition of organic matter in landfill sites. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently announced that £10 million will be made available for the construction of new commercial-scale anaerobic digestion demonstration plants. By removing carbon dioxide and other impurities, biogas can also be used to make biomethane, which could, theoretically, be injected directly into the gas networks. However, there are a number of challenges to address before it is possible to inject biomethane directly into networks in the UK, such as standards for quality and pressure.
The “Heat Call for Evidence” invites contributions on the potential of biomethane, the barriers to its deployment and how best to tackle those. It is essential to consider the responses to that and to feed our considerations into our broader work on the renewable energy strategy. Moreover, until we have reviewed the evidence on how to get biomethane into the gas system, we will not be able to judge what potential unintended or undesirable consequences might flow from the somewhat ad hoc change to the duties of the Secretary of State and the authority proposed by the new clause. Therefore, the kind of market-enablement that the new clause would provide seems entirely premature.
As I have said throughout this process, we should not make significant changes to a regulatory framework without careful consideration of the consequences. We cannot simply add powers and measures to the statute purely because we happen to have a legislative opportunity.
I should, however, say more on the connecting of renewables. There is currently a queue of projects at various stages of development, mostly in Scotland. National Grid is developing a suite of measures to ensure that available connection capacity is offered to the projects that are best able to connect early, which is to say those with planning consent. That is in line with the objective described by the hon. Member for Wealden to connect the most viable projects first.
I hope that I have said enough to assure hon. Members that there is no lack of interest in renewables that leads me resist the new clause—far from it. However, if we are to develop the UK’s contribution to our European target, we need a comprehensive strategy, not a variety of piecemeal ones.
I believe that important considerations of system reliability and investor confidence need to be addressed before we can conclude that priority access is in itself the right way forward to accelerate the growth of renewable generation. The draft EU renewables directive is, of course, still subject to negotiation between member states. It would not be appropriate to transpose the draft text under discussion into the Bill. When the negotiations have concluded, the finally agreed directive will be transposed into legislation in the United Kingdom in the usual way. In the light of those comments, I ask members of the Committee to withdraw the new clause.

Charles Hendry: It was clearly too much to hope that the Minister’s stony heart would melt at this last moment in our proceedings. It made me think of my little boy who was sure that he would get a PlayStation for Christmas, but found that he had been given a dictionary, and burst into tears. The Minister’s response was in the same vein. Nevertheless, it was not wholly unexpected. It is a happy coincidence, however, that the day before we reached such a debate in Committee the Secretary of State announced a consultation process on the way forward. At least, we can feel some joy at the fact that we might have advanced that consultation process.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman has been so kind and understanding. I just want to make matters clear. I am sure he understands that we are consulting on Ofgem’s guidance, not on Ofgem’s remit.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining matters. Clearly, such a process would not therefore require primary legislation to change it. Given that we have waited some time for an Energy Bill to be published, it is frustrating to know of the number of measures that have been put out to consultation. They really should have been dealt with before we reached this stage and thus included in the Bill. Nevertheless, we shall reflect on matters further, and take soundings from the SDC and other interested parties about what they think will be the appropriate way forward. We reserve the right to bring the provision back perhaps as a new clause or an amendment on Report. In the light of what the Minister has said, it would be inappropriate to press the new clause to a Division now. Instead we shall reflect further on the best way forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Extension of Marine Renewables Deployment Fund
‘The Secretary of State shall make regulations to extend the remit of the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund to include support for the early development of wave and tidal technologies that need to complete pre-competitive research and development through deployment and demonstration.’.—[Steve Webb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 25

Energy usage in homes and businesses
‘The Secretary of State shall, in each calendar year following that in which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) total energy consumption in domestic housing,
(b) total energy consumption by businesses, and
(c) the impact of government measures to assist energy efficiency.’.—[Charles Hendry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[Malcolm Wicks.]

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Malcolm Wicks: This is an exciting and useful moment, and I will now have to fill my days with other tasks. As I am flying to Tokyo tomorrow for a Gleneagles follow-up meeting of Energy and Environment Ministers, I do not think that I will not have too much time on my hands.
May I first thank you, Mrs. Humble, and your colleague, Mr. Amess, for the way in which you have presided over the Committee? You have done so most effectively, with the appropriate combination of sensitivity when we have strayed and iron discipline.
I would also like to thank our Clerks, those who work for Hansard and the police, who have not been overburdened with disciplinary problems. In particular, I would like to thank fellow members of the Committee, as proceedings have been an efficient, well-informed, and at times, highly intellectual. I noticed that The Guardian reported a little discussion that we had about the beautiful island of Alderney, which several of us took part in. I think that it was suggesting that that discussion did not show a high intellectual content for the Committee. I do not think that it reported anything else we said, which might say more about The Guardian than it does about the Committee.
I think that there has been a great deal of decency in the Committee and a great deal of give and take, if I can put it that way.

Charles Hendry: What give?

Malcolm Wicks: I have taken a great deal of understanding and patience from all members of the Committee and given away as little as possible, which was entirely satisfactory from my point of view.
I would like to thank my civil servants and officials, who from time to time have been useful on those rare occasions when the immediate answer was not to hand, and I also thank those in my private office for all their help.
I would like to highlight the fact that we have had a wide-ranging discussion on the topics and clauses and how thoroughly we have discussed the clauses to ensure that all the key issues and policies were debated, so that the Bill was scrutinised most thoroughly. I now look forward to further discussion on the Bill on Report. That might be a short discussion, but if I have not entirely satisfied Opposition Members or Members on my own side, it might be a lengthy discussion, which I certainly look forward to. Once again, Mrs. Humble, I thank you.

Charles Hendry: I shall echo many of the comments that the Minister has made. I obviously differ with him on the concept of give and take, as his is not quite the concept of give and take that I have been familiar with—the giving was not as evident as one might have thought it should be.
I also echo the Minister’s thanks to you, Mrs. Humble, and to Mr. Amess, for the way in which you have chaired our proceedings. You have been very generous. There have been occasions when we have erred and strayed a little from the direct content of the Bill, and you were very kind at times in allowing us to go as far as we did. That enabled us to address some of the wider issues connected with energy that were not directly included in the Bill.
I also thank the Minister for the way in which he has responded on most occasions. Not a single comma has been changed in the Bill as a result of the amendments put forward by the Opposition, but nevertheless he has always told us how grateful he has been for our contributions. He even said on one occasion that it was a genuinely interesting and useful debate, which I imagine meant that all the rest were not. He has been good humoured and very well supported. Perhaps I can go further than he has done in expressing gratitude to his officials. I just hope that he is there the next time a note comes from them saying, “I’m damned if I know. You’re on your own now, matey.” He will remember that particular moment for the way in which he put his thoughts to them.
I would like to pay particular thanks to the Clerk as well. We turned up in his office with a range of ideas that he had to phrase in an appropriate way to include in the Bill. Any mistakes can be blamed on our concepts or our way of presenting them. We are very grateful to the Clerk and his team for their work. He has been unfailingly helpful and good natured. At times, he was probably despairing, feeling that we should know more about parliamentary procedure than we did.
May I express particular thanks to my colleagues for their interventions? We have had a very well qualified Committee, which has shown a tremendous understanding of the different energy issues. I also want to thank my colleagues for making useful contributions to our proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans made particularly useful contributions in the form of Polo mints, sweeties and other things to keep us going. When her supply ran out, we had to turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South for Strepsils. My hon. Friends have also brought a great deal of knowledge and analysis to the Committee, which is what this Bill required.
I am grateful, too, to those from outside—the business, environmental and consumer groups—for their help in ensuring that we understood their concerns. I hope that we have been able to give a fair hearing to those issues, even if the votes did not ultimately show that. People will pore over these exchanges in years to come—the Minister looks worried about that. They will realise that there are other issues to which they must return. For example, last week I made a comparison in relation to tidal power off Portugal. I said that it was a bit like saying that the England rugby team had beaten Andorra; hooray, I think that they would be delighted to beat Andorra. It would be quite a breakthrough for them to be able to do so. Perhaps some of the comments will bear revisiting in the years to come.
The evidence sessions were very useful and extremely constructive. It is a change in parliamentary procedure that is useful to all of us. At the end of the day, this Bill has sadly been unchanged. Our concern was not about the failings within the Bill itself—it is not so much an Energy Bill but more a Bill about facilitating nuclear power and considering decommissioning arrangements—but about the fact that a range of energy issues that are deeply important to our country have been left out.
A whole range of consultations are taking place. I am surprised that the Minister has time to go to Tokyo when he has so many consultations. We are left with a consultation on microgeneration, decentralised energy, feed-in tariffs, smart meters, Ofgem and its duties, and priority access to the grid. All those issues could have been included in the Bill, but sadly have not been. We will have to go back to them on Report. This was a great opportunity to address some of the wider issues but I assume that another energy Bill will come along soon to include the things that have not been covered in this one. However, it has been a joyful experience to be involved in this Committee. Perhaps it has been slightly frustrating at times, but I thank the Minister for his approach, which has made these weeks and our discussions entertaining, enjoyable, but not always fulfilling.

Steve Webb: I very much echo the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I suppose with this Department, a Public Bill Committee has to be “BERR-able” rather than bearable, and it certainly has been that. I reinforce the words of thanks that have already been said to you, Mrs. Humble and Mr. Amess, and to the other members of the Committee. I have sat on Public Bill Committees in the past in which Labour Back Benchers were told to sit there, shut up and stick their hands up at the relevant moment. We have been delighted to hear the expert contribution from those on the Labour Back Benches. They have been willing to put their names to amendments, and we hope to see more of that in the coming weeks. I have enjoyed the knowledgeable and humorous contributions of the hon. Member for Wealden, who outed himself as having read The Guardian for 30 years. There is hope for him yet.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham for paying a very active part in the debates, particularly on the nuclear issues, when he was not checking his mobile phone to see who had won the 3.15 at Cheltenham. I have to admit that he was doing that this afternoon. I thank the Minister for the initial way in which he encouraged us to contact him and his officials so that we could have an informed debate. I think that his officials got their own back, because when my hon. Friend asked for some follow-up on an issue, he was supplied with a briefing. The purpose of that was to keep him quiet for the next few weeks, which is a cunning new ploy.

Malcolm Wicks: It is a mistake to read it.

Steve Webb: As the Minister has demonstrated.
The most remarkable thing about this Bill is that most of the interest is in what is not in it. We have, therefore, appreciated the selection of amendments and the ability to raise such important issues. Most of what we have wanted to talk about has not been in the Bill, but perhaps should have been. However, we appreciate almost everything that we have been able to talk about. We look forward to renewing our debate. The Minister and the hon. Member for Wealden have implied that there will be another energy Bill and energy Bills are like London buses in that more are coming. I suppose that we could say that they are renewable. I look forward to having similar civilised but more amending debates in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at four minutes to Six o’clock.